Women''s Preventive Screening in Rural Health Clinics

CONTEXT: Despite the strong interest in health care quality, little is known about the quality of preventive care among women in rural primary care settings. PURPOSE: We sought to assess the quality of screening practices in Rural Health Clinics (RHCs) as measured by the rates at which female patients received screening within national guidelines. METHODS: A cross-sectional, retrospective chart review of 480 charts of female patients in 12 randomly selected RHCs was conducted. Data were collected on screening activities documented in >3,800 patient visits. Chart data was extracted by trained, standardized chart auditors using the Women's Primary Care Screening Form for patient data and the Revised National Rural Health Clinic Survey for RHC background data. The rates of receipt of 5 preventive screenings received by female patients in RHCs were determined using a standardized and reproducible method, and patient and clinic characteristics associated with women's receipt of these screenings were identified. FINDINGS: Demographic characteristics of patients were similar to that of national rural comparisons. Screening rates for Pap tests (66%) and mammograms (55%) were lower than Healthy People 2010 estimates, but similar to other record audit data; screening rates for cholesterol with comorbidity (66%) were near the Healthy People 2010 estimate, and screening rates for cholesterol without comorbidity (61%) exceeded it; and rates of blood pressure screening (99%) exceeded Healthy People 2010 estimates of national rates. Screening rates for depression showed that 35% had received a formal or informal screening. CONCLUSIONS: Rates of screenings for insured and uninsured female RHC patients in this retrospective chart review were not significantly different. Methods to improve pap and mammogram screening rates are needed.     

A primary care cardiovascular risk reduction clinic in Canada was more effective and no more expensive than usual on-demand primary care – a randomised controlled trial

The objective of this randomised controlled trial was to compare the effects and expense of three approaches to care (1) proactive cardiovascular risk reduction (CaRR) clinic; (2) nurse telephone calls; or (3) usual care for people with cardiovascular risk factors in a Primary Care, Health Service Organisation (HSO) in Ontario, Canada. Subjects included consenting patients with an identified cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factor identified from the HSO computerised patient information system in 2004. Patients were excluded if they were mentally incompetent, <18 years of age, in a nursing home, or not English speaking. Of 1570 eligible subjects, 523 (33.3%) verbally declined, 145 (9.2%) could not be contacted, and 249 (15.9%) were not needed. The final sample size was 653 (41.6%), 634 completed the follow-up (97%). The Cardiovascular Risk Score, Health and Social Service Utilisation, Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating, Billings and Moos Indices of Coping, Personal Resource and Self-Efficacy Questionnaires were measured at baseline and 1-year follow-up by clinical examination and telephone interview. Cardiovascular risk scores were reduced in all treatment groups after 1 year. The proportions of subjects showing reduction in risk score greater than or equal to 10% was greatest in the CaRR group (69.2%) compared with Nurse Phone intervention (57.8%) and Usual Care (59.0%) ( M - H χ² = 4.33, df = 1, P  = 0.037, CaRR-Usual Care). Self-efficacy scores showed the greatest improvements in the CaRR clinic. This effect was achieved with no significant difference in total person per annum costs for direct and indirect health and social service utilisation between all three groups. A CaRR clinic is more effective in reducing CVD risk after 1 year compared with nurse phone intervention and usual care with no additional expense found.     

How Do Physicians and Midwives Manage the Third Stage of Labor?

ABSTRACT: Background: Current practice guidelines recommend active management of the third stage of labor. We compared practices of three maternity care provider disciplines in management of third‐stage labor and the justifications for their approach. Methods: This study is a cross‐sectional survey of maternity practitioners in usual practice settings in British Columbia. All 199 obstetricians, all 82 midwives, and a random sample of family physicians practicing intrapartum maternity care (one‐third, or 346) were surveyed The three main outcome measures by discipline were the method preferred in managing third‐stage labor, the reasons given for the chosen method, and views on the appropriateness of the current third‐stage labor guideline. Results: The overall response rate was 57.8 percent. Response rates indicating that the participants were “aware of guideline” were the following: obstetricians, 85.3 percent; family physicians, 53.7 percent; and midwives, 97.8 percent. Response rates indicating that the participants “agreed with guideline” were the following: obstetricians, 95.2 percent; family physicians, 97.6 percent; and midwives, 51.2 percent. Response rates indicating that “oxytocin should be given with anterior shoulder” were the following: obstetricians, 71.1 percent; family physicians, 68.3 percent; and midwives, 26.7 percent. Response rates indicating that “routine active management of third stage of labor should be the norm” were the following: obstetricians, 79.2 percent; family physicians, 60.2 percent; and midwives, 17 percent. All results were statistically significant (p < 0.01). Conclusions: A major difference was found between physicians and midwives in the management of third‐stage labor. Physicians routinely implemented active management of the third stage of labor; midwives preferred expectant approaches, principally based on women’s preference. Provincial data did not show differences in postpartum hemorrhage or transfusion rates by practitioner type. (BIRTH 35:3 September 2008)     

Feasibility and Reliability of the SHOT: A Short Scale for Measuring Pretreatment Severity of Alcohol Withdrawal in the Emergency Department

Background: Use of a symptom‐triggered scale to measure the severity of alcohol withdrawal could reduce the rate of seizures and other complications. The current standard scale, the Clinical Institute of Withdrawal Assessment (CIWA), takes a mean (±SD) of 5 minutes to complete, requiring 30 minutes of nursing time per patient when multiple measures are required. Objectives: The objective was to assess the feasibility and reliability of a brief scale of alcohol withdrawal severity. Methods: The SHOT is a brief scale designed to assess alcohol withdrawal in the emergency department (ED). It includes four items: sweating, hallucinations, orientation, and tremor (SHOT). It was developed based on a literature review and a consensus process by emergency and addiction physicians. The SHOT was first piloted in one ED, and then a prospective observational study was conducted at a different ED to measure its feasibility and reliability. Subjects included patients who were in alcohol withdrawal. One nurse administered the SHOT and CIWA, and the physician repeated the SHOT independently. The SHOT was done only at baseline, before treatment was administered. Results: In the pilot study (12 patients), the SHOT took 1 minute to complete on average, and the CIWA took 5 minutes. Sixty‐one patients participated in the prospective study. For the SHOT and the CIWA done by the same nurse, the kappa was 0.88 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.52 to 1.0; p < 0.0001), and the Pearson’s r was 0.71 (p < 0.001). The kappa for the nurse’s CIWA score and the physician’s SHOT score was 0.61 (95% CI = 0.25 to 0.97; p < 0.0006), and the Pearson’s r was 0.48 (p = 0.002). The SHOTs performed by the nurse and physician agreed on the need for benzodiazepine treatment in 30 of 37 cases (82% agreement, kappa = 0.35, 95% CI = 0.03 to 0.67; p < 0.02). The mean (±SD) time taken by nurses and physicians to complete the SHOT was 1 (± 0.52) minute (median = 0.6 minutes). Seventeen percent of patients scored positive on the SHOT for hallucinations or disorientation. Conclusions: The SHOT has potential as a feasible and acceptable tool for measuring pretreatment alcohol withdrawal severity in the ED. Further research is needed to validate the SHOT, to assess the utility of serial measurements of the SHOT, and to demonstrate that its use reduces length of stay and improves clinical outcomes. ACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE 2010; 17:1048–1054 © 2010 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine